Since this is a skybar lets have a wacky thread.....

If you where the Mayor of Leeds and where offered the opportunity to do ONE thing (taking no account of the budget) in the city centre what would you do?

Limited to the City Centre?

Tree line as many streets as possible.

(Yes only in the city centre.)

As for me,
I would Pedestrianise the hell out of the city centre, passing a by-law that any modern build that's not on a pedestrianised must have a underground car park so that people will park there cars and walk the city centre...
(That could be seen as two but it is one with a tad of more in-depth info)
:)

I wouldn't do that. Pedestrianisation is good in some areas, but not all the time. I think Leeds has got the balance pretty much sorted as it is. If the transport patterns ever changed to allow Vicar Lane to be pedestrianised though, I would support that.

I would remodel The Headrow/Dortmund Square area also:
-Headrow House would stay, but would be filled out at the back to create more space. I'd get rid of the concrete canopy that sticks out from the ground floor. A remodelling of the ground floor could make Headrow House quite a grand, New York-esque building.
-St. John's Centre would be rebuilt, but the same routes would be retained. An office tower would be built ontop of the shopping centre. The configuration of the idea is based on Reuters Plaza.
-Get rid of the kiosks in Dortmund Sq.; the shop/potato place can stay in the square, but housed in the SJ centre or Headrow House, or a more attractive kiosk that is better placed. Would be a good place for a street cafe too.
-Fountain in Dortmund Sq.
-Straightening of The Headrow. The kerb/roadway is constantly swinging in and out (to allow bus stops in a discrete way I suppose). I would make it straight like Eastgate- perhaps get rid of the central reservation to allow for wider pavements though.

I was thinking that about Dortmund Square as I passed through earlier. Trouble is, Leeds can't even keep the fountains they have already in working order so another would probably be too much for them to cope with!

Well at least Leeds has fountains unlike Harrogate.

And actually, when I was Sheffield the other week the foutains were off, and in Manchester on Friday, the fountains in Piccadilly Gardens were off. City Square still looks good when the fountains are off- there's a noticeable loss in Piccadilly Gardens when the fountains are off. The main attraction suddenly becomes Manchester's Berlin Wall.

Do the fountains in City Square actually still break? I know they did at one point. I pass through twice a day to and from the station- they're usually on. When they're off though, are you sure they're not just turned off?

Errr, waaaaay too much stuff. I guess priority would by a Leeds wide 24hr public transport network, including buses, trains & Tram/Underground system.

Errr, waaaaay too much stuff. I guess priority would by a Leeds wide 24hr public transport network, including buses, trains & Tram/Underground system.

:nono: City Centre only!

I was thinking more along the lines of Millennium Square and Eastgate, though it wouldn't harm for City Square's to be on more (though yesterday, as happens often, some were at about half height while a couple were barely spluttering out of the hole at all). I appreciate that they are supposed to be lowered or off during high wind but it's rather more frequen than that.

For crazy thinking, how about installing long horizontal passenger conveyors along all the pedestrianised shopping streets, and feeding directly into car parks so customers save their legs and move around much faster. Where they cross roads they can incline up to overhead pedestrian bridges like they do in airports. Certainly more novel than a monorail.

http://www.kone.com/countries/en_US/Escalators/Eco3000Autowalk/SYS_PIC/m_Newark-International-Airpor.jpg http://www.kone.com/countries/en_US/Escalators/Eco3000Autowalk/SYS_PIC/m_Newark-Intern-Airport.jpg

LOL, people need more blinkin exercise as it is! :lol:

A city centre monorail is what's needed. It should also be extended up the Otley Road - any buses or even trams on that road are going to face congestion - a monorail just goes OVER it all!!

Monorails. Everywhere.

EVERYWHERE.

EVERYWHERE

A city centre monorail is what's needed. It should also be extended up the Otley Road - any buses or even trams on that road are going to face congestion - a monorail just goes OVER it all!!

Put the 'el' into Leeds! If you've been to Chicago you'll know what I mean.

For crazy thinking, how about installing long horizontal passenger conveyors along all the pedestrianised shopping streets, and feeding directly into car parks so customers save their legs and move around much faster. Where they cross roads they can incline up to overhead pedestrian bridges like they do in airports. Certainly more novel than a monorail.

http://www.kone.com/countries/en_US/Escalators/Eco3000Autowalk/SYS_PIC/m_Newark-International-Airpor.jpg http://www.kone.com/countries/en_US/Escalators/Eco3000Autowalk/SYS_PIC/m_Newark-Intern-Airport.jpg

I thought that when talking about pedestrianisation. If more streets are to be pedestrianised, it musn't be at the cost of slowing the city down. Travelators are the key. City Station should have travelators anyway.

Clarence Dock would do well to have travelators up the side of the Armouries, and along Brewery Wharf. Loads more people would go down there if it was quicker, and also for the novelty.

El trains and monorails would be good. I can imagine a monorail running overhead on The Headrow. Would really give Leeds something unique.

The fountains in City Square don't just alter height depending on wind, but on all weather.

Monorail?
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6177/monorail.jpg

MONORAIL!

Monorail?
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6177/monorail.jpg

Is that the free city bus route? Get rid of that piece of crap and replace it with the monorail!

If there was an endless supply of money for it as you proposed, I think we could come up with something more inventive:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5739/monorailleeds.jpg

Is that the free city bus route? Get rid of that piece of crap and replace it with the monorail!

Not quite but very similar. The FCB could do with more buses running on it.

If there was an endless supply of money for it

...then we'd want personalised routes!

Train station to Opal Tower is the obvious one for me - lugging suitcases and guitars back and forth up the hill isn't fun. Briggate is needed for shopping and the university for, well, university.

I'd also make the monorail go past Hyde Park to my house next year, calling by at Millennium Square because I like it around there.


http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/awaren8/leeds/monorail.jpg

If there was an endless supply of money for it as you proposed, I think we could come up with something more inventive:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5739/monorailleeds.jpg

I like it....

and you would call the lines??

Perhaps we should come up with a full concept just for fun... like they have the SSC Metropolis on the world forum....

The idea is that it links the Central area up. In this area, rail lines are too busy to cope with any more traffic, and there's not much scope for any rail extension. Monorail is a creative solution.

The colours aren't final, I've just chosen them for best contrast against the map.

Yellow Line: Woodhouse Line
Red Line: Holbeck & City Line
Black Line: Cross Green & City Line
Purple Line: Wellington Line
Navy Line: Cross City Line

Leeds ..... "SSC Metropolis" :lol: :rofl: :kiss: ..... bless you :)

You didn't read that properly

The idea is that it links the Central area up. In this area, rail lines are too busy to cope with any more traffic, and there's not much scope for any rail extension. Monorail is a creative solution.

The colours aren't final, I've just chosen them for best contrast against the map.

Yellow Line: Woodhouse Line
Red Line: Holbeck & City Line
Black Line: Cross Green & City Line
Purple Line: Wellington Line
Navy Line: Cross City Line

Some of the Names are too similar could I suggest.....

Yellow Line: John Smeaton Line
Red Line: South-River Line
Black Line: Eastern Line
Purple Line: Wellington Line
Navy Line: Trans City Line

Some of the Names are too similar could I suggest.....

Yellow Line: John Smeaton Line
Red Line: South-River Line
Black Line: Eastern Line
Purple Line: Wellington Line
Navy Line: Trans City Line

I accept the point that some are similar, but I don't like the suggestions. I don't think lines should be named after people generally either.

Woodhouse Line, Holbeck & City Line, Aire Valley Line, Wellington Line and Cross City Line perhaps.

Regarding the lines themselves, I might try and focus them more on South Central Leeds to encourage growth in this area- especially at Clarence Dock and Holbeck Urban Village.

I accept the point that some are similar, but I don't like the suggestions. I don't think lines should be named after people generally either.

Woodhouse Line, Holbeck & City Line, Aire Valley Line, Wellington Line and Cross City Line perhaps.

Regarding the lines themselves, I might try and focus them more on South Central Leeds to encourage growth in this area- especially at Clarence Dock and Holbeck Urban Village.

You should make a thread for this and we could have some fun! :banana:

could I encourage you to change Holbeck & City Line to City Line and then change Cross City to Central Line? please?

:nuts: Bonkers lol. Where did all these 'Gates' and other strange names come from?

could I encourage you to change Holbeck & City Line to City Line and then change Cross City to Central Line? please?

Yes.

:nuts: Bonkers lol. Where did 'Cross Green Gate' come from?

Well the idea is that it would interchange with the rail line at that point. Therefore being a gateway transport point for that part of Leeds.

Well the idea is that it would interchange with the rail line at that point. Therefore being a gateway transport point for that part of Leeds.

:)

The principle behind that vision is based on linking the inner city with the Central area. There's a rim of deprivation around the extremely wealthy city- as in all cities. This is partly down to the way that the city is so cut off from the inner city by roads, railways and waterways.

A mass transit system like this would help spread the city's wealth out into the inner city. I'm hoping the Trolleybus will do this to some extent- it will first run from Stourton and St. James to the City centre, or so I read it would a while back in the paper. It was accompanied by a map- can't seem to find the article.

Well the idea is that it would interchange with the rail line at that point. Therefore being a gateway transport point for that part of Leeds.

Move it to Cross Gates, and have Cross Gates Gate :)

Or Harrow...

The question is: if there was a monorail would you want it to run above or hang under the rails? I like the hanging ones myself!

Forget Monorails, let's have a Spaceport!

Could these be installed at various strategic points around the periphery of the city centre, a new kind of park and 'ride' scheme.

The benefits would be short travel time, and the cost would be minimal as no tracks or structure is required, and if 'passengers' provided their own equipment it would keep the costs down even further.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Stephanie_smith_human_cannonball_-_melbourne_show_2005.jpg/250px-Stephanie_smith_human_cannonball_-_melbourne_show_2005.jpg

The question is: if there was a monorail would you want it to run above or hang under the rails? I like the hanging ones myself!

Hanging. I've seen those videos of the hanging monorail idea for London- it looks good I think!

Anyone ever heard of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn?

Anyone ever heard of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn?

Nein! Was ist das, auf Englisch?

I can only suggest running a search for it, but it's along the lines of this hanging monorail malarkey.

Anyone ever heard of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn?

That thing's pretty Awesome Welles:

0gTP084IjLc

Yes I've known about it for a while. It's not what I envisage though. I see a much more elegant and simpler design like this idea for London:
http://londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Waterloo.jpg
YdHwcEu69Lo
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=627706&page=3

WOW, YES PLEASE!!!!

^^ Or better still... have these things everywhere!

1WlRcXIO5ik

Much safer too, as long as people keep moving.

I stopped in a waterslide once (because it took ages to get onto it after the mammoth queue- this is at Waterworld in York) and I thought I should make the most of it considering it had took me so long to get on. But then someone came down behind me and crashed into me.

The Official REAL Campaign for the LHM (Leeds Hanging Monorail) starts NOW!

If we can't get a Supertram, we're hardly gonna get a monorail!

If we can't get a Supertram, we're hardly gonna get a monorail!

Would it be that much more expensive though? I mean there's less need to dig up roads, move utilities infrastructure, spend shotloads on consultancy for diverting traffic etc and surely the frames for the tracks can be pre-cast relatively cheaply?

Well in most cases, if the line is elevated, the stations will have to be elevated too. I'm sure to do that would be significantly more expensive than simply building platforms on the ground.

Well in most cases, if the line is elevated, the stations will have to be elevated too. I'm sure to do that would be significantly more expensive than simply building platforms on the ground.

I suppose with disabled access being required you're right as simple a set of steps wouldn't do...

Shame really, as elevating lines or putting them underground is the only real way to get around (or should that be over/under?) congestion. When / if we get Trolleybus it will have the same problems as Supertram would have which is that it will get stuck in traffic at certain points on its route.

75% of the Supertram route was to be segregated. I think Trolleybus is proposed to be something like 65% segregated.

I stopped in a waterslide once (because it took ages to get onto it after the mammoth queue- this is at Waterworld in York) and I thought I should make the most of it considering it had took me so long to get on. But then someone came down behind me and crashed into me.

What were you planning on doing in it? :nuts: :tongue2:


If we can't get a Supertram, we're hardly gonna get a monorail!

pessimist ;)

75% of the Supertram route was to be segregated. I think Trolleybus is proposed to be something like 65% segregated.

Is that enough though? Most motorists won't be tempted out of their cars if the choice is sitting in traffic in their own car rather than on a bus just to save a few minutes on their daily commute. If Trolleybus is going to get people put of cars it'll have to be much better segregated than just 65% IMHO.

No I don't think it is enough, but as Tbus is a tyred vehicle rather than the rail-based Supertram, it has warranted less segregation which seems to be acceptable. It shows that cutting corners and going for 'secondary' options usually results in a less effective outcome.

What were you planning on doing in it? :nuts: :tongue2:

pessimist ;)

I, having a spotlessly clean mind, cannot imagine what your dirty mind could have been thinking there. I was inspecting the plastic on the way down, looking at how each module of plastic had been joined to the next.

I'm not always pessimistic!

I quite like the idea of Monorails - something like that would set Leeds apart from other cities. I did read somewhere that Monorails cost about the same as Trams to install. That makes sense if you think about it - no utilities to divert but building what is effectively a continuous bridge through the city would be equally expensive.

However, I'm not really sure about their practicality:

a) They can't link up with other modes of transport.
and
b) You'd probably end up stuck with one single company for all the spare parts and replacements. Really you need to have a variety of suppliers so that there's some competition.

An elevated tramway would be more sensible - that way you could link up with the rail lines and there would be a selection of different suppliers. Or even an elevated Trolleybus line which could link with the road network.

75% of the Supertram route was to be segregated. I think Trolleybus is proposed to be something like 65% segregated.
No I don't think it is enough, but as Tbus is a tyred vehicle rather than the rail-based Supertram, it has warranted less segregation which seems to be acceptable. It shows that cutting corners and going for 'secondary' options usually results in a less effective outcome.As you so rightly say, a tyred vehicle has (potentially) 'warranted less segregation' - but that's because there is less likelihood of getting stuck when you can overtake. Therefore you don't always need quite as much segregation to get the same traffic flow.

However, I think the operative word is 'proposed' here. Those plans that came out a few years back were precisely that: proposals, ideas. We won't know how much segregation there will really be until the concrete plans come out (which depends on how much money they can eventually get their hands on).

I quite like the idea of Monorails - something like that would set Leeds apart from other cities. I did read somewhere that Monorails cost about the same as Trams to install. That makes sense if you think about it - no utilities to divert but building what is effectively a continuous bridge through the city would be equally expensive.

However, I'm not really sure about their practicality:

a) They can't link up with other modes of transport.
and
b) You'd probably end up stuck with one single company for all the spare parts and replacements. Really you need to have a variety of suppliers so that there's some competition.

An elevated tramway would be more sensible - that way you could link up with the rail lines and there would be a selection of different suppliers. Or even an elevated Trolleybus line which could link with the road network.

I don't think that is an issue, as long it integrated well at existing stations/bus stops. I think the DLR sets a good example of how a unique elevated system can work well as part of the wider transport network. A monorail would be the same, but the design of it less intrusive and obstructive- especially if it was hanging.

http://www.monometro.com/stills/BakerSt_1.jpg
http://www.monometro.com/stills/CanaryWharf.jpg
http://www.monometro.com/stills/LivSt_2.jpg

OMG!!!!! http://www.monometro.com/leeds

:banana:

:lol:

^^That link doesn't work!

The Question is will they have adverts all over them and spoil the modern look?
If they went ahead in Leeds I suggest the poles to hold the rails up are covered with tall thin screens in order to have a times square advert space on each one!
now that would be attractive!

If it ever did happen, it wouldn't suprise me if at least some of the poles had adverts on them- although maybe not digital screens. Leeds City Council has been trying to get extra revenue by advertising on lamposts- I'm sure you'll have seen them all over the city.

Since this is a skybar lets have a wacky thread.....

If you where the Mayor of Leeds and where offered the opportunity to do ONE thing (taking no account of the budget) in the city centre what would you do?

Surprising considering this is meant to be a skyscraper forum that it hasn't been mentioned yet but what about building a monument to my "Culture of Personality" and vanity? Surely if somehow I become the Dictator of the "People's Republic of Leeds" then what about a case for the world's tallest building or perhaps a resiting of the Emley Moor tower into the city centre (although of course that would make it useless in giving many places television coverage of course it would provide a useful attraction that is unique to Leeds (until someone somewhere else builds something taller).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/2008-10-26_burjdubai.jpg/159px-2008-10-26_burjdubai.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/EmleyMoorMastSpring2006.jpg/400px-EmleyMoorMastSpring2006.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Pyongyang-feb-2009-crop-Ryugyong_Hotel.jpg

Well, there's no point in building massive buildings if there's no transport for people to get to them. Transport would make somewhere more attractive = companies more likely to invest and grow = more space needed = bigger/taller buildings built with private money.

Well, there's no point in building massive buildings if there's no transport for people to get to them. Transport would make somewhere more attractive = companies more likely to invest and grow = more space needed = bigger/taller buildings built with private money.

I was being sarcastic, hence the reference to culture of personality and "Peoples Republic of Leeds" (although it really should be expanded to be the "Peoples Republic of Yorkshire"). :lol:

I see. Well that is a very interesting development. All of this thread is taken with a pinch of salt though- well more than a pinch!

I was being sarcastic, hence the reference to culture of personality and "Peoples Republic of Leeds" (although it really should be expanded to be the "Peoples Republic of Yorkshire"). :lol:

The Trick would be to declare Leeds its own City-State and make the Queen Head of state... That way we would be protected encase of invasion ect...
:)

If Scotland can be its own country, then Yorkshire can too! Plus, as Yorkshire Forward are always mentioning, we have a population and economy comparable to small countries like Denmark.

i could actually imagine something like that monorail running through leeds. i would much prefer an underground though :)

I think most would. Leeds would be a good city to have an RER/Cercanias type network- would free up the overcrowded Metro network to an extent for more national services.

i could actually imagine something like that monorail running through leeds. i would much prefer an underground though :)

From a passenger's perspective, a monorail would be much better. A small distance underground is ok but spending long journies every day underground is quite unpleasent as there's nothing to see outside, so you end up playing dodge the eye contact with fellow commuters and covertly pearing over someone's shoulder to read their newspaper.

Not a chance of any major investment in Yorkshire for transport in the next few years.

Nothing will come from Labour without congestion charging, the Conservatives have said they will reduce regional transport funding by 10% and look to invest in High Speed Rail instead, but even that will not start until sometime after 2015, and will not reach Leeds before 2030.

2030?? really!! im going to be an old man before i see that haha! to be honset though i use public transport very rarely as i have a car.. although i would use buses and trains more often if they werent so expensive and on time more often. i would much rather pay my car tax, insurance and petrol than wait around all day for a bus.

To be honest, it is unlikely that the High Speed Rail proposals will get anywhere anyway as the country will be massively in debt and every penny will be saved if at all possible.

Even if the proposals to build HSR2 do proceed I cannot see the line continuing passed Manchester.

It is hard to see a new line, through the Pennines being justified, it would be incredibly expensive and would deliver minimal benefits compared to the lower half of the line.

Better time savings could be achieved on the ECML with a much lower spend by the DfT, afterall, HSR2 would mean Leeds to London in about 1:45hrs, running at 140mph down the existing route would be achieved much cheaper and would deliver similar timings.

Leeds also does not have the issues that both Birmingham and especially Manchester have with overly congested tracks (note, tracks, not trains).

In a perverse way, to improve train capacity across all the Northern cities two things should happen, HSR2 - hopefully to Leeds, but improvements to ECML may deliver equal benefits, and the Manchester Rail Hub (which would cost a whopping 2bn pounds).

Ironically the Manchester rail hub would free up capacity such that places like Warrington, Liverpool, Leeds and Hull benefited from more reliable and more frequent trains as much as those in Manchester, if not more.

The Doncaster-Wakefield section of the East Coast line is busy though; part of the reason that the transport plan aims to open up the line from Hambleton Jcn.

I think that if the ECML were to be upgraded to a high speed line, it would be possible for journeys to be done in 1hr 15. And as you say, even if it was just at 225km/h, it would be 1hr 45.

Indeed there are small sections of congested track, but they could be solved for significantly less than it would cost to pile tunnels through the Pennines, and would almost certainly deliver equal if not better benefits.

Unless the HSR line to Leeds comes up the East of the country I do not see it necessarily as the best option and unfortunately there is no prospect of an East Coast aligement for a new HSR as the West Coast tracks are more over crowded and it is where the second and thrid largest cities and economies are.

However, there is higher growth on thet ECML than the WCML.

HSR won't be much good for Leeds-London, but it will provide a useful link between Leeds and Manchester, and Leeds and Birmingham.

What figures do you have for the higher growth on ECML compared to WCML?

I did not think such figures are produced on a regular basis, but anacdotally I have heard many times that since the new timetable was introduced on the WCML the passenger numbers for Manchester and Birmingham to London (both of which now have a 20mins service) has rocketed and far outstrips anything that is seen on routes on the ECML.

Seems the previous poor service on the WCML was surpressing demand that has now been let out, and (presuming the economy recovers) will very soon be out of capacity again.

The reality is that Manchester and Birmingham are by far the second and third largest cities in England both in size and economically.

The fact also is connecting Manchester to Leeds with a new HSR line would be extremely expensive due to the geography.

Maybe one day it may happen, but I would imagine only Birmingham will be connected at first, and then once that is a success the line continue to Manchester, then should that be a success potentially a line up the east coast, but not one through the Pennies.

I may be incorrect in my assumptions, Lord Adonis will report at the end of the year, but I would be very surprised to see Yorkshire on any HSR2, more likely in the long term HSR2 will continue to Glasgow, and a new HSR3 (a couple of decades later) head up the East Coast.

I will have to find them. GNER wanted to increase the frequency of trains to every 20 minutes between Leeds and London, which is why they were re-awarded the franchise. But their application was downturned, resulting in the overcrowding between Leeds and London today.

They are not bigger 'by far'- Manchester and Birmingham's catchment for a High Speed Rail hub is no more than 3m, about the same as Leeds. And both Leeds and Manchester have outperformed Birmingham economically in the last 20 years. I will dig out the figures if you are that bothered.

Of course the 'size' of cities can be measured in many different ways, but to pretend that Manchester and Birmingham are not of a different level population and economically that the English cities outside of London is blinkered.

There are obviously many differing ways of measuring the catchment of a city, but I would point you towards tab 14 on the spreadsheets found at this location http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=15084

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=33749944&postcount=6 is a post discussing the economies of the eight core cities during the current downturn. The ONS seem to describe Leeds as about half the size of both Manchester and Birmingham, I suspect this is about correct. When you consider that places like Oldham and Rochdale (not included in that Manchester figure) will be a short light rail journey away from any Manchester HSR station it is easy to appreciate that Manchester will have much more of a call on a station after a line is built to Birmingham than any other English city.

I am not convienced that those of us in Yorkshire should necessarily be calling for HSR2 to go from Birmingham, Manchester and then to Leeds to connect Leeds to Birmingham and Manchester as you suggest.

I think a much better call would be for Leeds to be linked up down the east coast, that would be a much better alignment for the city, an inferior west coast aligment for Leeds would never be improved, and we would be stuck with it literally for ever.